Read a saved pipeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavior: the pipeline is confined to settings.PIPELINES_DIRECTORY and names resolving outside it are refused. This security-relevant boundary is valuable for an agent to know before invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the workflow context follows, and the security constraint is stated last. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how the parameter is sourced, and the filesystem safety constraint. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only 'name' as a string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that name must be one saved by save_pipeline and reported by list_pipelines, and that it must resolve within the trusted directory, adding critical meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states an exact verb and resource: 'Return the full configuration of one pipeline saved by save_pipeline'. It also names the related tools list_pipelines and run_pipeline, making the tool's role in the pipeline lifecycle clear and differentiating it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear workflow context by explaining the returned configuration can be inspected, edited, saved again, or passed to run_pipeline, and identifies list_pipelines as the source of valid names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.